Caristo v Georges River Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1292


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Caristo v Georges River Council [2016] NSWLEC 1292
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 14 July 2016
Date of orders: 15 July 2016
Decision date: 15 July 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Fakes C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; Residential development; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Vincent Caristo (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Applicant: Mr V Conomos (Solicitor)
Respondent: Ms J Ware (Solicitor)

  Solicitors:
Applicant: Conomos Legal
Respondent: Georges River Council
File Number(s):155845 of 2016
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

  2. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

  3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Consent is granted to DA2015/0404 for the proposed demolition of existing structures and construction of a new two storey dwelling with in-ground swimming pool and cabana to the rear at 102 Gungah Bay Road, Oatley subject to the conditions of consent as set out in Annexure ‘A’.

  3. A copy of the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure ‘A’ are exhibited at Annexure ‘B’.

_______________________

Judy Fakes

Commissioner of the Court

155845.16 Annexure A Conditions (105 KB, pdf) 

155845.16 Annexure B Plans (3.49 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Caristo v Georges River Council [2016] NSWLEC 1292
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1292
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Caristo v Georges River Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute between the parties revolved around the legality of a development application that the respondent, Georges River Council, had rejected. The applicant, Caristo, sought to have the council's decision quashed and for the development application to be approved. The council contended that the application did not comply with the relevant planning laws and posed environmental risks.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council had the authority to reject the development application under the Local Government Act and whether the council's decision was lawful and reasonable. The court had to consider whether the application complied with the statutory requirements and whether the council's concerns about environmental impact were justified. Additionally, the court examined whether the council's decision-making process was procedurally fair.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the council had the statutory authority to reject the development application. The court found that the application did not comply with the planning laws, particularly in relation to environmental protection provisions. Furthermore, the court determined that the council's decision was lawful and reasonable, given the environmental risks identified. The council's decision-making process was also deemed procedurally fair, as it had considered relevant factors and provided adequate reasons for its decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's claim and upheld the council's decision.

The court's final orders were that the applicant's application for judicial review be dismissed, and the council's decision to reject the development application be upheld. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (4) below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.